PBS&J 400 Technology Drive, Suite 100 Canonsburg, PA Tel: Fax:

Transcription

1 PBS&J 400 Technology Drive, Suite 100 Canonsburg, PA Tel: Fax: MEETING MINUTES: Wetland Mitigation Site Selection Project: Location: PENNDOT Bell's Landing Bridge Replacement Project SR 3005, Section A01 At site located in Greenwood Township, Clearfield County, PA approximately 10 miles southwest (upstream) of Curwensville on the West Branch Susquehanna River Time: 10:00AM October 19, 2005 Attendees: Name Organization Phone Scott Shaffer PENNDOT Chris Peacock PENNDOT Mike Dombroskie USACE Ted Clyde USACE Dave Peachman USACE David D. Long PENNDOT Jared Dressler PADEP Kevin Mixon PGC Toni Zawisa PENNDOT Chris Peacock provided a brief history of the project s origin and the purpose and need to replace the bridge and bring roadway alignment up to current design standards. PENNDOT Engineering District 2-0 proposes to replace a narrow and deteriorated bridge which carries SR 3005 over the West Branch of the Susquehanna River with a wider, safer structure. The project will also improve the approaches to provide safer passage over the new structure. It was noted that the proposed project will likely move to construction in late 2007 or early Prepared for PENNDOT District 2-0 by PBS&J///TriLine Page 1 of 6

2 John Conroy showed a preliminary design and current extent of wetland impacts. The project, as currently designed, is expected to impact two (2) wetlands and require 0.29 acre of replacement wetland (see Table 1). Details of the wetland delineation are addressed in the May 2005 Wetland Report prepared by PBS&J. Wetland impacts and mitigation were summarized as follows: Wetland Table 1 - Anticipated Wetland Mitigation Requirements Impact Area (acres) No No Type Mitigation Ratio Required Mitigation Area (acres) Palustrine forested 2 : Palustrine scrub / shrub 1.5 : Total 0.29 On-Site Mitigation The group then looked at a possible on-site mitigation area that includes both PENNDOT right-ofway and USACE owned property. Location: West of the existing bridge and separated from the river by what will become an abandoned portion of SR 3005, a portion of which must remain in service for access to the USACE/Game Commission property. Land OwnershipPENNDOT currently retains a Department of the Army Easement and Consent for Public Road or Street for the existing roadway (S.R. 3005) on ACOE property. A draft new Easement has been developed for the proposed bridge replacement project and it is likely that the existing easement area will no longer be maintained by PENNDOT. Space to construct a full 0.29 acre wetland should be available if permission is granted to use adjacent USACE property. It was also noted that the PGC was issued a Department of the Army License for Fish and Wildlife Activities on the adjacent ACOE property. Hydrology Source: Groundwater at depth is estimated <±10 feet, surface water from unnamed tributary to River which also feeds an upgrade wetland area, and backwater from River during high flow stages. This tributary drains to the River via an existing culvert under SR 3005 which was clogged with sediment and damaged at the time of our field meeting. Chris stated that Mike Dombroskie had brought a potentially problematic issue related to the site to his attention. The ACOE does not typically allow wetland mitigation projects to be constructed on ACOE property. This site may be viewed Prepared for PENNDOT District 2-0 by PBS&J///TriLine Page 2 of 6

3 differently, however since the impacted wetlands are on ACOE property and on property where the ACOE maintains a flowage easement. Chris has been in contact with Lacy Evans, Baltimore ACOE District, over the last several weeks regarding ACOE review of the issue and should have a definite answer as to whether or not the ACOE property can ultimately be used for the project s proposed mitigation by early next week. Paul Wettlaufer, ACOE, was to meet with the ACOE s legal council to go over the project information late in the day on the 19 th. Jared Dressler ask if the area frequently floods and was concerned with possible scour potential being that the mitigation area is so close to the river. Ted Clyde stated that the roadway (S.R. 3005) has been flooded approximately 5 or 6 times in the last five years. David Long stated that the flooding of S.R was Maintenance s biggest concern surrounding the project area. Chris then explained that at previous site meetings it was stated by the ACOE that the 100 year flood elevation in the project area is controlled by the Curwensville Dam; Ted Clyde agreed that this is correct. Therefore flood events in this area would not likely have high velocity flows causing scour within the proposed wetland. Kevin Mixon asked how much of the adjacent upland would be needed for the mitigation. Chris explained that the existing access would be maintained to the ACOE property with a single lane gravel drive that would be shifted towards the river. This would allow for the majority of the existing roadway to be used for the mitigation area while minimizing the need for disturbing the adjacent upland. Chris also explained that the Department would be limited to that area immediately adjacent to the existing roadway due to archaeological concerns from the previous archaeological study. Toni Zawisa stated that in her initial field work to find an Advanced Wetland Compensation Site for Service Area 6, she had looked at the area located on ACOE property west of the Bells Landing Bridge and that due to a known archaeological site and the high probability of additional testing, this area was not pursued for Advanced Wetland Compensation. Chris mentioned and Scott Schaeffer confirmed that for the purposes of the Bells Landing Project, some archaeological testing had been conducted and that some areas close to the proposed mitigation site were found to contain materials but that the significant portion of the site would not be impacted by the wetland mitigation. Additional testing could be required and the wetland design might include some avoidance of areas containing archaeological materials, i.e. incorporation of preservation in place. Mike Dombroskie inquired as to whether the bridge was an eligible historic resource and the status of cultural resource coordination for the project in general. Scott Shaffer responded that coordination had been completed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and that an MOA addressing both archaeology and the historic structure had been prepared for the project. Prepared for PENNDOT District 2-0 by PBS&J///TriLine Page 3 of 6

4 It was also noted by Kevin Mixon to consider contacting Colleen Shannon, Land manager with PGC to see if any construction details are available for the wetland construction currently managed with by the PGC. Kevin stated that Colleen or the current Land Manager would review the wetland planting plan. Discussion followed about repair of the standpipe or outfall of the existing constructed wetland which would be up-gradient and could be controlled to permit optimum hydrologic allowance for the created wetland s forested component since the impoundment would be hydrologically connected to the proposed wetland mitigation. Advantages: Unnamed tributary provides the most reliable source of wetland hydrology in the immediate project vicinity. There may be potential to raise water table with a small control structure to impound water in the unnamed tributary. This would reduce the required excavation depth. Area has more potential mitigation space within the existing right-of-way than any other project site areas. The mitigation would replacement currently impervious roadway surface with natural ground and wetland. Disadvantages: Substantial grading would be necessary. Some current forest cover would be lost, but could be minimized. Phase I Archaeological Status: Prehistoric artifacts found in 4 of 5 shovel test pits in vicinity. Additional Information Needed: Pieziometric data, topographic mapping. Additional Discussion It was brought up by several individuals in the group that it may be possible to include some wetland enhancement as mitigation if the 0.29 acre creation could not be achieved in the proposed creation area. An area containing Japanese knotweed presented the greatest interest as an area with enhancement opportunity. Scott Shaffer posed some concern that this area might have a high probability for archaeology. Additional shovel tests might have to be pursued in the area if it is utilized in the wetland design. Enhancement opportunities would also have to be further reviewed by DEP and the ACOE. The group also visited the Wetland #1 and #2 areas and potential impact areas. Discussion followed about permitting issues since Jared Dressler was not involved with the JD/Pre-application field view. The group discussed minimization measures such as increasing slopes in final design and looking for areas to reduce impacts to Wetland #1. Discussion also followed regarding the number of piers proposed for the new bridge. John Conroy showed a preliminary design which shows 1 pier in the east bank of the river and 2 in stream. Prepared for PENNDOT District 2-0 by PBS&J///TriLine Page 4 of 6

5 Jared and Mike asked that within the alternatives analysis that it be explained why the proposed structure has to be shifted downstream at the proposed skew. Different span lengths/configurations should be investigated to try and minimize the impacts to the river and its associated banks. Jared asked that a functions and values comparison between the impacted and proposed wetlands be included in the Joint Permit Application. He also stated that he would talk with Gerry Miller, DEP, concerning his thoughts since he had attended the previous field views. Off-Site Mitigation Advanced Wetland Compensation The group then proceeded to the McPherron Advanced Wetland Compensation Project site in Chest Township, Clearfield County. In the event that on-site mitigation is not feasible due to the legal concerns pending at the ACOE, or for any other as yet undetermined reasons, this site was presented as an alternate mitigation opportunity. Toni Zawisa provided two handouts; a wetland delineation report and the results of 3 years of groundwater monitoring for the site. Toni led the discussion and stated the advanced wetland compensation proposal is to create/restore approximately 3-4 acres of wetland located on PGC State Game Land (SGL) 120. The property will remain as State Game Lands following completion of the project. Toni provided some background and history, noting that an agency field view of the site had been conducted in June of At that time the permitting agencies had requested that wetland delineation be conducted. In addition, Mike Dombroskie, ACOE, had requested groundwater monitoring. These activities, topographic survey, cultural resource clearance, PNDI coordination, preliminary preparation a NEPA document have been conducted for the advanced compensation site. Field view of the site was conducted. There was a general agreement that the delineated wetland boundaries may have changed in recent years and a new delineation is needed prior to defining the mitigation area. Toni agreed noting that the delineation had been conducted during 2002 and that the unusually wet conditions experienced during 2003 and 2004 may have resulted in some site changes. Similarly, due to the record wet years experienced, groundwater monitoring had been extended through the 2005 growing season. Advantages: The site provides for greater wetland acreage than the on-site location, which may provide additional benefits to wildlife. The site is presently owned by the Pennsylvania Game Commission and this protective management would continue. No acquisition of right-of-way would be required. Groundwater results support adequate hydrology for approximately 2-3 acres. Excavation in much of the site would be limited to 2-4 feet. The nature of the site and the manipulation likely to be required to develop it as a wetland lends itself well to construction by PennDOT maintenance forces or through the use of maintenance rental equipment and operators. Disadvantages: In order to achieve up to 4 acres of wetland a supplementary source of hydrology would be required. The existing pond and spring seep could provide for this additional source of hydrology. Further investigation is required during the development of a design to determine how additional hydrology could be captured. Prepared for PENNDOT District 2-0 by PBS&J///TriLine Page 5 of 6

6 Cultural Resources Status: A Stipulation D clearance has been obtained for this site. Additional Information Needed: Adjustments to the wetland delineation and development of a design. Mitigation here will require a separate permit from that of the bridge construction project. A separate CE is also required. Mitigation design could be completed by PENNDOT or private consultant engineering services.. Additional Discussion There was agreement that on-site mitigation is preferred, PENNDOT however is awaiting the decision from USACE legal counsel regarding the approval of placing wetland mitigation on USACE property. If approval is denied, then mitigation will likely take place at the McPherron site. Jared Dressler and Mike Dombroskie deferred approving the site as mitigation for the Bells Landing project pending the ACOE legal response and the additional information requested for the McPherron site. They stated that they would need to see the revised wetland delineation and a design plan prior to approval as an advanced wetland compensation site. - Prepared for PENNDOT District 2-0 by PBS&J///TriLine Page 6 of 6